Latest Cases

European Union – Social security. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal against rejection of a claim for employment and support allowance (ESA) by a European citizen from another member state, held that the labour market-related benefits which an EU citizen from another member state could claim by virtue of EU citizenship was restricted to those whose sole or predominant function was to facilitate access to the labour market. ESA was not, on that test, a labour market-related benefit and a job seeker from another EU member state was not eligible for it. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr M. Cervati, in his capacity as general partner and legal representative of Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino, a partnership having ceased to trade (Malvi), and the partnership itself and the Italian Customs Authority), concerning a correction and recovery notice notified to Malvi in relation to imports of garlic of Argentinian origin subject to a preferential rate of customs duty. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant solicitors' firm's appeal and allowed the claimant's cross appeal from an order made after the quantum only trial of a professional negligence claim against the defendant. The judge had made an error of principle in having confined his assessment of loss to the transaction date, rather than the trial date and none of the judge's reasons justified the conclusion that the claimant had not unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss. Nonetheless, the defendant was liable for the full cost which the claimant had incurred in curing a defect in a lease, albeit after trial, in the sum of £157,100. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Chancery Division ruled that the defendant company (a nightclub) and its sole director and shareholder at the material times were guilty of contempt of court by reason of the breaches of an injunction restraining them from infringing the claimant's copyright by using, without a licence, recordings in the claimant's repertoire as specially featured entertainment at the nightclub. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the district judge's allocation of his claim, within the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents, from CPR Pt 8 to Pt 7 in circumstances where the personal injury claim had been settled but damages for car hire charges remained at issue. The district judge had erred in that further evidence had not been necessary. Further, the case had not fallen within para 7.2 of CPR PD 8B and the district judge had had no power under that paragraph to re-allocate the claim. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant Independent Monitor of the Home Office, upholding the disclosure of information in an enhanced criminal record certificate. The defendant had not undertaken the independent review required of him and his analysis could not withstand the application of the Wednesbury test of reasonableness. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ruled on the re-hearing of cross-applications for child arrangements orders in respect of a six-year-old child, T, whose mother had died. It held that, in all the circumstances, T's interests would be best served by her remaining in the care of the family friends of the mother and a child arrangements order would be made that T lived and made her primary home with them. However, the father and his partner had to play a full part in T's life and childhood and a further child arrangements order would be made which provided for, among other things, contact and visits during the school holidays. 

Civil procedure – Interim interdict – Construction of will and codicil. Court of Session: In proceedings in which the pursuers contended that a will and codicil should be read as requiring the defender to ensure that their rights to development profits were guaranteed in all time coming by the imposition of a burden on the title to an estate, and that unless interdicted he would convey the estate to a third party free of arrangements giving effect to the condition which ought to attend the title, the court recalled an interim interdict granted earlier, holding that the pursuers' averments and submissions disclosed at best a weak prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of interim interdict. 

Medical negligence – Childbirth – Causation – Liability. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in a medical negligence action by pursuers who sued for damages in respect of hypoxic brain injury their daughter suffered at birth, the court accepted the pursuers' argument that the Lord Ordinary, who assoilzied the defenders, had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision, and that, taken with his excessive delay in producing his opinion, meant that there had not been a fair trial of the issues and his interlocutor should be recalled; however the only course that the pursuers invited the court to take—a remit to the Outer House for proof of new—was incompetent and the court was therefore left with only one option, which was to refuse the reclaiming motion. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division held that there was no statutory power to direct post-mortem scientific testing to establish biological relationships but that the order that a stored DNA sample of a deceased could be tested alongside a sample of the applicant's would be made in the present case under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.